Site Mobile Navigation

An Advocate Who Scares Republicans

The piñata sat alone at the witness table, facing the members of the House subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit.

The Wednesday morning hearing was titled “Oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” The only witness was the piñata, otherwise known as Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor hired last year by President Obama to get the new bureau — the only new agency created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law — up and running. She may or may not be nominated by the president to serve as its first director when it goes live in July, but in the here and now she’s clearly running the joint.

And thus the real purpose of the hearing: to allow the Republicans who now run the House to box Ms. Warren about the ears. The big banks loathe Ms. Warren, who has made a career out of pointing out all the ways they gouge financial consumers — and whose primary goal is to make such gouging more difficult. So, naturally, the Republicans loathe her too. That she might someday run this bureau terrifies the banks. So, naturally, it terrifies the Republicans.

The banks and their Congressional allies have another, more recent gripe. Rather than waiting until July to start helping financial consumers, Ms. Warren has been trying to help them now. Can you believe the nerve of that woman?

At the request of the states’ attorneys general, all 50 of whom have banded together to investigate the mortgage servicing industry in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, she has fed them ideas that have become part of a settlement proposal they are putting together. Recently, a 27-page outline of the settlement terms was given to banks — terms that included basic rules about how mortgage servicers must treat defaulting homeowners, as well as a requirement that banks look to modify mortgages before they begin foreclosure proceedings. The modifications would be paid for with $20 billion or so in penalties that would be levied on the big banks.

Naturally, the banks hate these ideas, too. So the Republican members of the subcommittee had another purpose as well: to use the hearing to serve as a rear-guard action against the proposed settlement.

“Under what statutory authority are you currently acting?” demanded Representative Patrick McHenry, a Republican from North Carolina, questioning the legitimacy of her role in setting up the consumer bureau. He also questioned whether the government had the right to impose a $20 billion penalty on the banks — and then use that money for (heaven forbid) mortgage modifications.

Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama, the new chairman of the Financial Services Committee, wanted to know how closely Ms. Warren had been consulting with the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner about naming a director for the bureau — and whether she would accept a recess appointment “knowing the type of blowback from that.” (A recess appointment is a temporary appointment the president can make when the Senate is in recess, thus avoiding the need for Senate confirmation.)

Representative Steve Pearce, Republican of New Mexico, said that he fully expected the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be no better than “the S.E.C. and Mr. Madoff.” “Within two years,” he added, “your agency is going to be operating exactly the same, that it’s simply out there grinding wheels away.”

Representative Scott Garrett, Republican of New Jersey, zeroed in on the proposed settlement. Where in the statute did she have the authority to consort with the attorneys general? he demanded to know. “Are you making recommendations to government regulators about the dollar amount?” he badgered. “Is that part of your role, to make recommendations about dollar amounts?”

On and on it went, until the hearing sputtered to a close, two and a half hours after the browbeating had begun.

Photo

Elizabeth Warren, President Obama's adviser on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at the House hearings this week.Credit
Harry Hamburg/Associated Press



To listen to the House Republicans, you’d think the financial crisis of 2008 was like that infamous season of the long-running soap opera “Dallas,” the one that turned out to be a season-long dream. Subprime mortgages? Too-big-to-fail banks? Unregulated derivatives? No problem! With the exception of their bête noire, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Republicans act as if nothing needs to be done to prevent another crisis. Indeed, they act as if the crisis never happened.

The home page on the House Financial Services Committee’s Web site has been turned into a screed against Dodd-Frank. Clearly, the committee is going to spend this session trying to minimize the effect of the legislation, starving agencies of the funds needed to enact the regulations mandated by the new law, for instance. In fact, that effort has already begun.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

It’s not just the House Republicans either. Already the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has reverted to form, becoming once again a captive of the banks it is supposed to regulate. (It has strenuously opposed the efforts of the A.G.’s to penalize the banks and reform the mortgage modification process, for instance.) The banks themselves act as if they have a God-given right to the profit they made precrisis, and owe the country nothing for the trouble they’ve put us all through. The Justice Department has essentially given up trying to make anyone accountable for the crisis.

Thank goodness, then, for the attorneys general — and for Ms. Warren. On Main Street, where the attorneys general operate, it is pretty obvious that problems persist. During the subprime boom, many states tried to stop the worst lending abuses, only to be blocked by federal banking regulators. Now that the country is dealing with the aftermath of those abuses — the rising tide of defaults and foreclosures — it is the attorneys general who are, once again, put in the position of trying to stamp out abuses, this time of the foreclosure process itself.

Their leverage comes from the fact that the banks and their servicing divisions have, in the words of the University of Minnesota law professor Prentiss Cox, “routinely violated basic legal process” by, for instance, not transferring the note after the sale of a home. But in addition to assessing a financial penalty on the banks, the A.G.’s are trying to use the threat of litigation to force the banks to finally deal with defaulting homeowners more fairly and humanely. That is the essence of the settlement proposal that has been floating around. That — and a big push to finally come up with a modification plan that works.

When I spoke to Tom Miller, the Iowa attorney general — and the leader in this 50-state effort — he said that one reason he had asked Ms. Warren for advice was that she had already hired people with genuine expertise that he wanted to take advantage of. But that’s not the only reason. If the banks were to agree to settle the case on the A.G.’s terms, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be the agency charged with enforcing the terms. So it makes sense to include its current leadership as they work through ideas for a settlement. Besides, the A.G.’s don’t really trust anybody else in the federal government to be on the side of financial consumers. Given their previous experience, why would they? Ms. Warren is the one person in Washington they feel is on the same side they’re on.

The notion that Ms. Warren lacks statutory authority to talk to the attorneys general is an objection so silly it is hard to take seriously. Consulting with the only government officials around who are actually trying to do something for financial consumers is precisely what she ought to be doing. Given that her agency could wind up enforcing the terms, it’s practically a necessity.

As for the idea the Republicans have been spreading talk that the attorneys general are overstepping their bounds by trying to force reform — and a big penalty — on the mortgage servicers, that’s pretty silly, too. As Adam Levitin, a Georgetown law professor, has pointed out on his blog recently, settlements are private agreements between two parties. The banks can accept what the A.G.’s are proposing. Or they negotiate different terms. Or they can reject them outright, and go to court to fight over the proper remedy. It’s really not any different from the multistate tobacco settlement of some years ago, which imposed some minor reforms on the tobacco industry along with a giant financial penalty. Congress had nothing to do with it.

I wish I could say with certainty that the ideas put forth by the attorneys general will finally help ease the foreclosure crisis. I hope they do. Mr. Levitin thought there was a decent likelihood of success; Mr. Cox, a former assistant attorney general himself, was also hopeful — though more skeptical. “So much of it rides on how well it is enforced,” he said.

Which is also why Ms. Warren is the most logical person to be the agency’s initial director: if the settlement does come to pass, no one will understand its terms better, or have a better feel for how to enforce them. Let’s face it: there isn’t anybody in Washington more fearless about standing up to the big banks. No wonder they don’t like her.

As I listened to her on Wednesday, I was struck anew at how clearly she articulates the need for the new bureau. “If there had been a cop on the beat to hold mortgage servicers accountable a half dozen years ago,” she said at one point, “the problems in mortgage servicing would have been found early and fixed while they were still small, long before they became a national scandal.”

Senate Republicans have vowed to block her appointment if President Obama nominates her. Yet even if her nomination goes down in flames, Senate confirmation hearings would be clarifying. Americans would get to hear Ms. Warren explain why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has the potential to help Americans. And they would get to hear Republicans explain why the status quo — including the everyday horror of the foreclosure mess — is just fine.

It has been much noted in recent months that President Obama seems unwilling to start a fight with Republicans. Maybe that’s why he has shied away from nominating Ms. Warren to a job for which she is so clearly suited. But if protecting financial consumers — and helping the millions of Americans struggling to hold onto their homes — isn’t worth fighting for, then what is?

A version of this article appears in print on March 19, 2011, on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: An Advocate Who Scares Republicans. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe